Whether to capitalise or not to capitalize the start of lines

[tectak]

My thoughts.
Individual poets write individual poetry, individual crits give individual critique...what else can we expect? Capitalising every line start makes no sense whatsoever to me as I cannot see "purpose" only affectation. I cannot expect a reason from the writer as to the "why?" without feeling I am just looking for a fight so I see it, I advise against it and am slowly  begining to leave it at that. I have NEVER had anyone tell me why they do it, except the feeble excuse that the computer did it, and am becoming bored with hearing myself repeat the same old dogma. Perhaps anything goes and i should be like whatever, Byron, innit.

I gave my 'reasons' above. The reason why they may have a hard time articulating a reason
is that you're asking them to explain why they like something.

My neighbor has a blue car.
I say, "I'm guessing you like blue cars."
He says, "Why yes, I do."
Then I ask him, "So, why do you like blue cars?"

As far as expecting  poetry to make "sense" goes, I hold firm. If communicative language is not the soul of poetry then what is left?
tectak (and what is good enough for Chaucer is NOT good enough for me. Byron? Jury still out)

The problem here is agreeing on what "sense" means.
When I say that poetry doesn't have to make sense, all I'm saying is it doesn't need to
contain a logical narrative. There are so many other things that can be communicated.

Rhythm, alliteration, rhyme, metrical feet, lines with the same number of feet,
rhyme schemes, repeated  lines, repetition of all sorts, etc., etc.
The types of symbolism, allegory, personification, all manner of other forms of
metaphor where the connection/comparison is not of the logical sort (angry skies).

None of that makes sense, but it does communicate.

Hi ray,

My neighbor has a blue car.
I say, "I'm guessing you like blue cars."
He says, "Why yes, I do."
I ask "Why do you like blue?"

He says,"Because when it is a nice day the sky is blue."
I say" Hey, that makes sense. I can understand that."  
OR  
He says, " I have no idea. I just do".
I say, "Oh."

Now you started it but I do not need to argue that whilst both scenarios offer a valid stance for the human condition, I get "information" about the thought process, as transmitted, in the "blue sky" case. Unsurprisingly I get no information about the thought process in the "no idea" case.

Of course, you could argue that you learn something about something in both cases BUT metaphorically leaning,  you learn about the POEM in the case of the "blue sky", whereas you learn about the POET in the "no idea" case.

I care not about poets, their foibles, their religion or lack thereof, their drug habits, their angsts, their paranoias or their hang-ups. I only care about how they express their ideas in the poem. So give me "blue sky" any day against "no idea."  
Put it another way.

My neighbour capitalises every line in his poetry.
I say "I'm guessing you like to capitalise every line?"
He says "Yes. I do"
I ask "Why do you like to capitalise every line?"
He says " Because I am locked in the past and want to be like Byron".
I say,"Well. good luck with that".

Actually, just saying "I have no idea why I capitalise every line" is probably more telling.

Best,
tectak